Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

What about the TRINITY....have we lost our WAY?


Sauliga
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

9 hours ago, chilco said:

The same is true in the churches.   We have people with different views, and they are welcome to join in fellowship and worship.   However, if they start riding their "hobby horse" against a teaching that the majority hold dear, they may very well be asked to desist or leave.

I remember one member who was into the lunar calendar and a few other things, and would constantly disrupt Sabbath School classes with his remarks.  When this member walked in the door of the church, the Sabbath School teacher's hands literally shook as he attempted to lead in the lesson study.  Yes, the man was eventually asked to leave.  The pastor offered to study the Bible with him privately, but he didn't want that -- his mission was to "covert" the wayward church.

We've had a few of those, fortunately not many. I could not myself subscribe to the current wording of the 28, but where my personal beliefs depart markedly from the official SdA positions, I hold my peace.

As for the Trinity, my views lean toward the heresy or modalism over orthodox trinitarianism, but I don't really care that much one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Sauliga said in the quote below:

*  Certainly a Conference President may advise a congregation on this matter and it is not wrong for such a President to advise.

*  However, it is the congregation that has the authority in this matter, and not any individual denominational employee, to include the congregational pastor.

*  Yes, I am aware of times when a congregation has not acted in compliance with what I consider to be the rules.

*  As to a SDA sharing their thoughts:  There is a wide range of thinking on this  question.  As a former congregational pastor of a district, I informed my Elders that in a specific situation that I considered was likely to exist, the police should be immediately called to remove a person form the Church.  Why, because that person had a past history of attempting to physically remove women from the platform whom he felt should not be on the platform.  He would have said that he was only sharing his beliefs.  In my experience, typically when people are removed from SDA membership, it is typically not be because they attempted to share their beliefs, but because on the manner in which they attempted to share their beliefs and typically during a congregational meeting.

*  We have a member of this forum who is a strong advocate, in this forum, of a non-Trinitarian position.  She would agree with you on many points.  She has a strong ministry and a strong Internet presence.  We welcome her to this forum.  I am aware of SDA congregations what would welcome her as a member.  but, she is welcomed here in part because of the manner in which she conducts herself and on that basis, I am a strong supporter of her, although I strongly disagree with her on several of her doctrinal positons.

*  I will be frank as to how I perceive you.  You have not come across to me as one who should be banned from posting here.  There are elements in your posts that suggest tome that you just might be a welcomed poster in this forum.  And there are elements, such as you having an agenda and a concern as to you willingness to dialogue with people that concern me.  Plus, I have some concern as to you simply bringing up questions and issues that have been will discussed in the past in this forum.  But,  your comment on "absolute truth" really interested me.  So, I am willing to continue to converse with you and to see what happens.  IOW you do interest me.

*  By the way, it is fine for you to differ with me.  Most people, to include my wife, do differ with me at times.  :)

 
 

 

Quote

Greg..I beg to differ..I have heard a conference president calling for the disfellowshipping of non - trinitarians..but then again this was because a few were distributing DVDs on the subject. Do you think members are to refrain from sharing their belief that may be contrary to current mainstream Adventism?  Thoughts?

NOTE:  I have no idea as to where a couple of graphic images have become attached to this post.  I will attempt to remove them, but I am uncertain if I can.

It seems that I was able to remove them.  :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Sauliga, asked in the quote below:

*  As I have said:  The so-called 27/28 should NOT be used as a creed to determine whether or not someone becomes a SDA member.  Period.

*  However, there comes a place where a person might want to ask why they wanted to become a SDA member.  If they disagreed with 20 on the 27/28, would they be comfortable as a SDA member?

*  My personal position is that I want as members as many as possible who:  want to be a member, believe that God wants them to be a member and behaves in a congregational member.  That is the policy that I followed in the past as a congregational pastor. 

What if I drop out Fundamental 2,3 4 as well, what would you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2018 at 3:21 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Since you have made up your mind, why even discuss sit with us?  This forum does not exist for people who have made up their mind to come here and attempt to convert us to their belief.

Really?  WE should only discuss things that we all agree on?  We should never discuss something that someone else might not believe?  Is that offending?  Are people that insecure in their beliefs?  Are they offended when their beliefs are challenged?  IF that were true, where is the place for evangelism? Gregory, have you ever changed you mind?  Have you ever help another change their mind on something they were previously convinced? 

 

13 hours ago, Sauliga said:

 I believe, God the Father and Son and Holy Spirit together are the one and only true God -- three Beings, eternal, equal, infinite, one in purpose, love, and holiness.

NOTE - due to the buggy software that runs this site, the quote is attributed to Saluiga instead of the true source, chilco.  Chilco, you state your belief, but what does the Bible say? 

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

The one God is the Father.  Christ is the Son of God, and thus has the nature of His Father.  John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.  John 5:27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

 

And EGW:

 

The Saviour is our Comforter. This I have proved Him to be.{8MR 49.3}

 

We want the Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ. If we commune with God, we shall have strength and grace and efficiency. {Lt66-1894}

 

Who is the Comforter?

 

This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ, called the Comforter. {14MR 179.2}

 

Let them study the seventeenth of John, and learn how to pray and how to live the prayer of CHRIST. HE is THE Comforter. He will abide in their hearts, making their joy full. {RH, Jan 27, 1903}

 

As by faith we look to Jesus, our faith pierces the shadow, and we adore God for His wondrous love in giving JESUS THE COMFORTER. {19MR 297.3}

 

Christ is to be known by the blessed name of Comforter. "The Comforter," said Christ to His disciples, "which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you, [John 14:26 quoted] {Ms7-1902, January 26, 1902}

 

The Saviour is our Comforter. This I have proved Him to be. {8MR 49.3}

 

Jesus said, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." John 14:18

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I would say its a free country, you can do what you want. I dont care if you believe in that rock on the ground in your yard, or the monkey at the zoo. I know in whom I have believed and that i can trust in what I have committed unto Him against that day of days. There is not enough room on any page of this forum for me to say what Jesus has done for me, and how God has turned my life around....The Spirit is finally getting through.

Freedom is found in the truth...Christ is the truth..we embrace truth through him...is there absolute truth or are we just going to determine truth according to our own understanding? Its not about what I want to do, it's about what Christ wants me to do..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one of those "Badventists" who is not a Trinitarian - I am a "Twinitarian".  I believe the Father and the Son to be the Members of the Godhead.  I lean strongly towards the opinion that the HS is a power rather than a person (specifically, the Spirit of Christ - that is how He is with us always - even to the end of the age).  I condition my opinion with  the statement that God is beyond my understanding.  His ways are not my ways and His thoughts are not my thoughts.  We are incapable of even accurately imagining what God is.  Any views that I (or anyone else) have fall short of the glory of God.  Our impressions of God tend to "put him in a box" that He is likely to jump out of.

That being said, I am confident that I will be in the Kingdom - not by my own goodness but by the mercy and grace of my Lord.  If - in our little 1-on-1 "performance appraisal" - Jesus tells me that He disagrees with my position on the Trinity, I will for sure change my opinion to be in conformance with His.  If Jesus says the Holy Spirit is a member of the God head, I will totally understand and heartily agree with Him.

On the subject of disfellowshipping those who don't embrace the full 27/28 Fundies, I have witnessed these proceedings where the "official" charge has been heresy; but unofficially it was because the person being disfellowshiped had a history of disrupting and commandeering Sabbath Schools and Sermons being a jerk in general.  People were always free to believe what they wanted as long as they didn't disrupt official church business or services with their "heresies".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

APL asked the following in the quote below:

Please note that in my original comment, there were two parts:  1)  Mind made up.  2)  Attempt to convert us to a point of view.

People who hold both of these viewpoints have generally not interacted well with people in this forum.  People who may have made a decision on a viewpoint, and are willing to            accept and dialogue with people who hold different views, have more likely been successful in interacting in this forum.

As to evangelism:  That involves working with the Holy Spirit.  It does not involve playing at being God ourselves. 

 

Really?  WE should only discuss things that we all agree on?  We should never discuss something that someone else might not believe?  Is that offending?  Are people that insecure in their beliefs?  Are they offended when their beliefs are challenged?  IF that were true, where is the place for evangelism? Gregory, have you ever changed you mind?  Have you ever help another change their mind on something they were previously convinced? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sauliga said:

Freedom is found in the truth...Christ is the truth..we embrace truth through him...is there absolute truth or are we just going to determine truth according to our own understanding? Its not about what I want to do, it's about what Christ wants me to do..

True, but how do we find that truth?  Yes, truth is found in Christ -- but do you accept that Christ is really, truly the one and only true God, or just a divine representative of God?  For God is the source of absolute truth.   Christ is the truth, because He is God!
So you think one understanding is "absolute truth" and others see something different to be "absolute truth".   So yes, each person must determine for themselves.  We cannot allow someone else to destroy our faith in Christ!

 
When I first was introduced to the anti-trinity campaign back in 2000 at the Toronto General Conference meetings, when the non-Trinitarians felt it their duty to stand at nearly every corner leading to the center where the GC meetings were being held, and handing out their literature, it was rude shock.  By the way, I still have all the literature they gave me, whole booklets by some Smyrna organization.   Later I engaged in rather long debate by e-mail with one of them,  and did a lot of prayer and Bible study on the subject, and I can sincerely and completely say, I can NOT accept their message.

Truth, I find to be very much about Christ's great condescension, He Who from all eternity was ONE with God the Father, He Who was God, He Who was the creator and sustainer of the whole universe, laid that aside and became fully dependent upon His Father and lowered Himself even to the death on the cross to save us.   He Who returned to heaven still bearing  humanity was highly exalted and seated on the right hand of the throne of God, but for eternity He retains His humanity.   He became our brother, and unites us, through Himself to the Father.    To me, what Christ gave up, to save humanity, to save me, is an act of unfathomless love.

For me, all those texts that non-Trinitarians use to (in my opinion) demote Christ, refer to His condescension for humanity.

1 Corinthians 8:6 -- just change the "uninspired punctuation".    For us there is only ONE GOD: the Father and the  Lord Jesus Christ.  All things are of both, planned together, spoken into existence by Christ, the Word.

When people who seemed to be on a mission to take that away from me, and say God the Father somehow produced a Son before creation so there would be someone He could send to create and by which to save a creation that He knew would fall into sin,  just doesn't  awaken the same awesome love. 

For me the absolute truth of Christ is that He is verily, truly, true God in the fullest and completest sense,  the infinite, eternal Son of God, from all eternity, to all eternity.

 

Yes, my mind is made up on that point.   So I think I should probably leave the discussion --
I just want people to know Christ in the fullest sense.   Emmanuel -- God with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Chilco:  Leave the discussion,  No, not in my thinking.  You are not on a one-horse platform.  (Forgive my illustration.  :)  )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, chilco said:

1 Corinthians 8:6 -- just change the "uninspired punctuation".    For us there is only ONE GOD: the Father and the  Lord Jesus Christ.  All things are of both, planned together, spoken into existence by Christ, the Word.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

 

Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,--one in nature, in character, and in purpose,--the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Colossians 1:16); and to Christ, equally with the Father, all heaven gave allegiance. {GC 493.1}

A very strange paragraph indeed for a trinitarian to say and even understand.  Christ, the only being in all the universe who could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.  The FATHER wrought creation through His Son.  But a trinitarian will say that The Father did not really have a Son, that it is just a title.  The trinitarian creed masks this, making it a mysterious.  Could it be that it is mysterious because it just is not true?  A little child can understand the relationship between the Father and the Son.  Their relationship is clear:  GOD is the Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Chilco:  Leave the discussion,  No, not in my thinking.  You are not on a one-horse platform.  (Forgive my illustration.  :)  )

 

Thanks, I know the illustration wasn't directed at me, but I also know I can get quite involved in trying to get a viewpoint across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chilco said:

True, but how do we find that truth?  Yes, truth is found in Christ -- but do you accept that Christ is really, truly the one and only true God, or just a divine representative of God?  For God is the source of absolute truth.   Christ is the truth, because He is God!
So you think one understanding is "absolute truth" and others see something different to be "absolute truth".   So yes, each person must determine for themselves.  We cannot allow someone else to destroy our faith in Christ!

 
When I first was introduced to the anti-trinity campaign back in 2000 at the Toronto General Conference meetings, when the non-Trinitarians felt it their duty to stand at nearly every corner leading to the center where the GC meetings were being held, and handing out their literature, it was rude shock.  By the way, I still have all the literature they gave me, whole booklets by some Smyrna organization.   Later I engaged in rather long debate by e-mail with one of them,  and did a lot of prayer and Bible study on the subject, and I can sincerely and completely say, I can NOT accept their message.

Truth, I find to be very much about Christ's great condescension, He Who from all eternity was ONE with God the Father, He Who was God, He Who was the creator and sustainer of the whole universe, laid that aside and became fully dependent upon His Father and lowered Himself even to the death on the cross to save us.   He Who returned to heaven still bearing  humanity was highly exalted and seated on the right hand of the throne of God, but for eternity He retains His humanity.   He became our brother, and unites us, through Himself to the Father.    To me, what Christ gave up, to save humanity, to save me, is an act of unfathomless love.

For me, all those texts that non-Trinitarians use to (in my opinion) demote Christ, refer to His condescension for humanity.

1 Corinthians 8:6 -- just change the "uninspired punctuation".    For us there is only ONE GOD: the Father and the  Lord Jesus Christ.  All things are of both, planned together, spoken into existence by Christ, the Word.

When people who seemed to be on a mission to take that away from me, and say God the Father somehow produced a Son before creation so there would be someone He could send to create and by which to save a creation that He knew would fall into sin,  just doesn't  awaken the same awesome love. 

For me the absolute truth of Christ is that He is verily, truly, true God in the fullest and completest sense,  the infinite, eternal Son of God, from all eternity, to all eternity.

 

Yes, my mind is made up on that point.   So I think I should probably leave the discussion --
I just want people to know Christ in the fullest sense.   Emmanuel -- God with us.

"Absolute truth" is inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. So we can either take that or simply ignore and go along with our understanding. Christ is truly the source of truth for he is the “express image” (Heb 1:3) of his Father. The Father loves and adores his Son ( Matt 3:17). Even so this love is shown to mankind so that in as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12). Thus let not our hearts be troubled but we are to believe in God and his Son.(John 14:1). That to me is what Christ came to do as the Son of the Living God (Matt 16:16) ,not to do his will but the will of His Father (John 6:38)

I am not here to convince you for you have already made up your mind but what I do know that both of us need a Saviour.

God was in his Son reconciling the world to himself ( 2Corinthians 5:19),for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Collosians 2:9).

Truth to me is about the love of the Father towards mankind that he had to give up his Son as a sacrifice so that we can have a chance to eternal life; this was aptly demonstrated in the giving up of Isaac as a sacrifice. How it must have hurt Abraham but he was faithful just as God was faithful in his promise (Gen 3:15)

Calling Christ the Son of God does not reduce him to anything less

He is truly the divine literal Son of God, not a role player (that hurts)

If Jesus were to ask you today who you think he was, what would you say?

For me:

.. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

..for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto me, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15:17)

The good news though is, to this day “ we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”1John 2:1

I think that matters to both of us, no matter what our view of Christ is. From what you’ve said I believe you are a very sincere but God will not leave his “sons” shrouded in mystery. God will  continue to work in me, not matter how “stony and made up”  heart could be..who knows just how things may pan out in the future…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in answer to Sauliga

 

Yes, absolute truth is " is inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts".  But the question remains as to whether we know what those absolute facts are.  People read the same passages and understand them quite differently.   It's often hard to explain because understanding spiritual things have deep foundations.  
No doctrine stands by itself, there is an inter relationship connecting them.

 Christ came...not to do his will but the will of His Father (John 6:38)

 Yes, Christ came to this world to do His Father's will.   When He took humanity, He placed Himself in our position.   No relying on His own powers, nor following the desires of His human flesh, He completely depended upon the Father,  even in the garden when the human flesh was recoiling from the ordeal, and thoughts that the sins of the world were too great to allow for a resurrection plagued Him, He submitted to the Father's will.   He, who was equal with the Father, took on the form of a servant.   (See Phil. 2:6-8)

In His eternal pre-existence -- His will and the will of the Father were in perfect harmony.   It was not One dictating over the other -- They were One in purpose, goals and desires, etc.

God was in his Son reconciling the world to himself ( 2Corinthians 5:19),for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).    
True,  as in John 10:38  Jesus says, " believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."    (Also in John 14:10 and 11)  They are one.

" both of us need a Saviour"  Amen! And praise His name we have a Savior, in Jesus Christ our Lord. 

And yes, Abraham's agony in taking his son to sacrifice, illustrates God the Father's agony in sending Christ.   Yet, Abraham did not have to sacrifice his son, for God provided HIMSELF a lamb  (Gen 22:8) for a sacrifice.   It's the only sacrifice that can take away the sins of the world.  Only God the Creator could give His life to atone for a whole race of sinful humans.

God is love -- the Oneness of God is cemented in love -- it is a love far superior and intense than we humans have ever experienced.  It was Christ's greatest agony on the cross to be separated from the Father -- the sins of the world ripping apart the eternal oneness that is God -- that agony was far greater than all the beatings, nails and insults put together.

 

If Jesus were to ask you today who you think he was, what would you say?

John 20:28  "My Lord and my God." 

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 

 

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
This was Peter's realization that Jesus was not just a man,  it was His exclamation and recognition of the divinity of Christ.  The promised One.   Emmanuel, God with us.  We all need to make that recognition -- the man walking the dusty paths of Palestine 2000 years ago, was not just a man, He was the eternal Son of God, the Messiah, God in the flesh of humanity.

 

Calling Christ the Son of God does not reduce him to anything less

He is the Son of God,   He is God manifested, the One Who goes forth from the center of the heavenly throne,  and mingles with the angels,  He came forth and mingled with humanity.    No one has seen the Father, but Christ is God manifested, the One Who goes forth to created beings to reveal to them God. 

The issues that reduce Christ's position, is when the terms "only true God" are denied Him, and assigned exclusively to the Father.  
 

The literal Son of God, not a role player (that hurts)  

No, Christ is not "PLAYING" any role.   It surprised me when I first heard non-Trinitarians use that phrase.   When we say Christ was the "Lamb of God" from the foundation of the earth.  Do we take that literal?   If we say He took on the "role" of saving humanity by being their sacrifice and their priest and intercessor, does that mean He is "playing a role".   No, of course not.   It means that He took on the assignment before creation to be the sacrifice for the created beings should they fall.   There was no "role playing" involved, it was a serious and awesome commitment.  He became the surety for the human race.

Actually the term "son of God" has rich meanings that this short post can't contain. 

  
I believe Christ is the Son of God from all eternity.  I believe there never was a time when Christ was not by the Father's side.  They've been the ONE GOD, together from all eternity.   Just because they took on different tasks, -- the Father on the throne with omniscient presence throughout the whole universe,  the Son is with the Father on the throne, but going forth from the Father to create and mingle with the created to reveal God unto them.  He goes forth from the Father, and returns to the Father.    "I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."   John 8:42  " I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.  John 16:28

only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.  

Yes, Christ goes forth to mingle with the created, but because He is truly God, He, and not the created, enters into all the counsels of God.

 

But thank-you for your civil tone.   And truly, we are thankful that we have a Savior and an intercessor in Christ.   He came forth from the center of God's throne to become our brother.

With His human arm He encircles us, and with His divine arm He clasps the Father's hand -- thus bridging the gap sin has made between us and God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings chilco,

The following is evidence that you have attempted to answer two of the main Scriptures that non-Trinitarians use. I suggest that your explanation and statement are not very convincing.

23 hours ago, chilco said:

1 Corinthians 8:6 -- just change the "uninspired punctuation".    For us there is only ONE GOD: the Father and the  Lord Jesus Christ.

 

14 hours ago, chilco said:

The issues that reduce Christ's position, is when the terms "only true God" are denied Him, and assigned exclusively to the Father.

John 17:1-3 (KJV): 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Corinthians 8:6 -- just change the "uninspired punctuation".   
For us there is only ONE GOD: the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist..

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:43 PM, TrevorL said:

I suggest that your explanation and statement are not very convincing.

I agree it would not convince someone who thinks Christ was not God;  just like telling a person who believes people go to heaven when they die, aren't convinced when we change the punctuation of the verse where Jesus says,   "I say to you today you will be with me in paradise".

But for someone who believes that Christ IS truly God, One with the Father, it does make sense to change the comma to an colon.

 

The verse previous:
1 Corinthians 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1 Cor. 8:6  For us there is only ONE GOD: the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist

Notice in verse 5 while talking of false gods, it first mentions these so called gods in heaven or on earth,  and then in the next phrase groups "gods and lords" together representing these so called gods.  
Then in verse 6, it follows the same pattern but declares for us there is only ONE GOD,  and then groups the Father and the Lord Jesus together as the only true God.

Mark 12:29 Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 
 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 

Notice how Jesus groups the "Lord" thy "God" together == they are not separate titles but both pertain to the one true God.
    We have ONE God:   the Father Who sits upon the heavenly throne, and Jesus Christ Who is God, One with the Father but lays aside His position, goes forth from the throne, and becomes a servant to bring us back to God.  Just because He goes forth from His place upon the throne to redeem us and points us  back to the Father on the throne, does not rob Him of His title, true GOD, ONE WITH THE FATHER.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings again chilco,

It is not my intention to get into an extensive discussion on the Trinity, and it is off-topic here. What I was suggesting is that in your fairly long Posts, almost hidden were two supposed answers to two major verses that are used by non-Trinitarians. I also suggest that the rest of your Posts did not convince me to support the Trinity.

4 hours ago, chilco said:

I agree it would not convince someone who thinks Christ was not God;  just like telling a person who believes people go to heaven when they die, aren't convinced when we change the punctuation of the verse where Jesus says,   "I say to you today you will be with me in paradise".

But for someone who believes that Christ IS truly God, One with the Father, it does make sense to change the comma to an colon.

In part, bypassing your response here, I am not sure of how you would view the many Scriptures that speak of the One God the Father, while Jesus is mentioned separately. The following Scriptures are an example of how the Apostles understood this subject. They viewed God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ as distinct beings. There is no evidence in the following that they believed and taught the Trinity. Rather they believed that there is one God the Father and we never find the term “God the Son”. Rather the Apostles separate Jesus from God, calling Jesus “Lord” and “Christ” and “the Son of God”.
Romans 1:7 (KJV): To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:1 (KJV): Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
Galatians 1:3 (KJV): Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Colossians 1:2 (KJV): To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Timothy 1:2 (KJV): Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Titus 1:4 (KJV): To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Philemon 3 (KJV): Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 John 3 (KJV): Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
Matthew 14:33 (KJV): Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Mark 1:1 (KJV): The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Kind regards Trevor

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are many texts like this -- but for me these texts are not "separating" Christ from God, and saying He is not God,, but rather uniting" Christ with God the Father, as One with God, Who is God. 
We need to remember that all these NT verses were written in the years following Christ's life, death and resurrection.   The recent (for them) historic fact that a "man" named Jesus of Nazareth had lived, been crucified and possibly resurrected was known by many.   Many people remembered, or at least talked with people who had seen, heard or been with Jesus while He was on earth.   

The important message the apostles were sharing, is that same Jesus, who was  here on earth as a man, is indeed resurrected and  is "set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb. 12:2  .   They were sharing His equality with God the Father -- John in several verses directly says Christ is God.  (John 1:1, 20:28)  Thus the grace, peace and mercy, the truth and love of God wasn't just coming from the Father but also from Jesus Christ. 

It's in the OT that we really see Christ as God.

Christ is the One Who went forth from the throne of God and appeared to mankind throughout the OT.  And He is referred to as God, all through the OT.

1  Cor. 3:4 that spiritual Rock [with it's life giving water]  that followed them [the Hebrews in the wilderness]: and that Rock was Christ.
" Enshrouded in the pillar of cloud by day and in the pillar of fire by night, Christ directed, guided, counseled the children of Israel in their journeyings from Egypt to Canaan."  

Who spoke to Moses from the burning bush?
Ex. 3:4 "God called unto him out of the midst of the bush,"
 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:
 

And notice in the NT:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

 I AM means an eternal presence;  Christ was using the great name of God that was given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence. He was claiming that title as His own!

 

  And what about the experience of Moses and the seventy elders:

Ex.  24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 
 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 
 24:11 And  the nobles of the children of Israel also  saw God.

Who did they see?

Jesus told us that no mortal has seen the Father.   But these people of Israel SAW God.  
They saw Jesus, Who is God manifest!  Truly God, One with the Father.   The One Who goes forth from the Father, to manifest the will and purposes of the Godhead to the created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that Jesus Christ is God.  I struggled with this for many years; and then I was made aware of the many explicit instances in the gospels where Jesus accepted worship (Matt. 2:2; 14:33; 28:9; 28:17;Luke 24:52, John 9:38).  There are scores of other implicit instances - like the entire book of Hebrews.

If Jesus accepted worship, He either had to be God, or He was an evil impostor and charlatan.  Which is it?  I choose the former.

My problem with the Trinity is that I find it hard to accept that the HS is a "Person" rather than a force or power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Matthew 28

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings again chilco, and Greetings JoeMo and LifeHiscost,

 

My environment and experiences and study have led me along a different path on this subject. I was taught from an early age that there is one God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. In my teenage years I came under the influence of a number of youth leaders, and two of these at least were strong advocates of the subject, the Yahweh Name and God manifestation. One weekend is memorable. When I was 19 we attended a youth class held in one of these leaders’ home and at the end travelled to the Southern Highlands arriving about midnight. We had a weekend on the subject of the Yahweh Name and God manifestation. This has been impressed upon my experience and beliefs, setting a direction in my life, and it has been a stability in my life, and I sometimes term this my first love. I also use this term for the fact that I started to go with my future wife, and she is also my first love. This was 54 years ago and with God’s mercy I will continue steadfast, and not fail in these and the faith as Jesus warned the Ephesians in Revelation 2.

 

In more recent years I attended a seminar series on Daniel in a local SDA Church. After a few sessions, one evening when many were away, they decided to issue a similar pamphlet as the series on the Trinity. I felt embarrassed by this. One of the main quotations was John 10:30: “I and my Father are one”, and a few agreed that this is a foundation Trinity verse, and a general murmur of consent was voiced. For my part I simply expressed that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but did not elaborate. This was the last class that I attended in the series, partly because I felt that I was not welcome with my different views, and partly because I felt that I needed to come to a better understanding of John 10:30 and other passages.

 

By participation in forums and by personal study I have drawn conclusions on most verses that cover this subject including John 10:30-36, and maintain that there is one God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Nevertheless I need to be open to learn more, and where necessary be corrected. It is not my intention to answer each of you in a thorough way, but briefly state where I differ. If you want a fuller explanation then I will oblige, but I do not think that this is the purpose of this thread.

 

14 hours ago, chilco said:

Yes, there are many texts like this -- but for me these texts are not "separating" Christ from God, and saying He is not God,, but rather uniting" Christ with God the Father, as One with God, Who is God. 

Yes, Jesus is one with His Father John 10:30, but Jesus explains this is because he is the Son of God John 10:36.

 

14 hours ago, chilco said:

It's in the OT that we really see Christ as God.

Christ is the One Who went forth from the throne of God and appeared to mankind throughout the OT.  And He is referred to as God, all through the OT.

1  Cor. 3:4 that spiritual Rock [with it's life giving water]  that followed them [the Hebrews in the wilderness]: and that Rock was Christ.
" Enshrouded in the pillar of cloud by day and in the pillar of fire by night, Christ directed, guided, counseled the children of Israel in their journeyings from Egypt to Canaan."

The references to God in the OT are an Angel who represented God Psalm 8:5. Judges also represented God John 10:30-36. Jesus is represented by the rock, but it was a literal rock that Moses struck, and water came out. Jesus was smitten in crucifixion, and he provides the water of life.

 

14 hours ago, chilco said:

Who spoke to Moses from the burning bush?
Ex. 3:4 "God called unto him out of the midst of the bush,"
 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:
 

And notice in the NT:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

 I AM means an eternal presence;  Christ was using the great name of God that was given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence. He was claiming that title as His own!

The correct translation of Exodus 3:14 is “I will be” and this is given by Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins. It is confirmed by Exodus 3:12 and 6:1-8. The KJV translates the same phrase from John 8:58 in John 8:24, 28 as “I am (he)”, and this is not a direct quotation of Exodus 3:14.

 

14 hours ago, chilco said:

 And what about the experience of Moses and the seventy elders:

Ex.  24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 
 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 
 24:11 And  the nobles of the children of Israel also  saw God.

Who did they see?

Jesus told us that no mortal has seen the Father.   But these people of Israel SAW God.  
They saw Jesus, Who is God manifest!  Truly God, One with the Father.   The One Who goes forth from the Father, to manifest the will and purposes of the Godhead to the created.

This was an angel and angels who represented God.

 

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

I have no doubt that Jesus Christ is God.  I struggled with this for many years; and then I was made aware of the many explicit instances in the gospels where Jesus accepted worship (Matt. 2:2; 14:33; 28:9; 28:17;Luke 24:52, John 9:38).  There are scores of other implicit instances - like the entire book of Hebrews.

If Jesus accepted worship, He either had to be God, or He was an evil impostor and charlatan.  Which is it?  I choose the former.

Philippians 2:11 tells us that when we bow to Jesus, it redounds to the glory of God the Father, not the glory of the Trinity.

 

1 hour ago, LifeHiscost said:

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Matthew 28

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Yes they have the one Name, Yahweh. Jesus is a development of that Name Matthew 1:21, Acts 4:10-12.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

God a person:   I cannot conceive of God as a person in the sense that we experience personhood  here on Earth.   My preference is to use the term "personal being," as in my opinion this term does not have the baggage associated with the word "person."

I acknowledge that some would attribute that to word games.  Well, it works for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2018 at 2:52 PM, APL said:

Really?  WE should only discuss things that we all agree on?  We should never discuss something that someone else might not believe?  Is that offending?  Are people that insecure in their beliefs?  Are they offended when their beliefs are challenged?  IF that were true, where is the place for evangelism? Gregory, have you ever changed you mind?  Have you ever help another change their mind on something they were previously convinced? 

 

NOTE - due to the buggy software that runs this site, the quote is attributed to Saluiga instead of the true source, chilco.  Chilco, you state your belief, but what does the Bible say? 

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

The one God is the Father.  Christ is the Son of God, and thus has the nature of His Father.  John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.  John 5:27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

 

And EGW:

 

The Saviour is our Comforter. This I have proved Him to be.{8MR 49.3}

 

We want the Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ. If we commune with God, we shall have strength and grace and efficiency. {Lt66-1894}

 

Who is the Comforter?

 

This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ, called the Comforter. {14MR 179.2}

 

Let them study the seventeenth of John, and learn how to pray and how to live the prayer of CHRIST. HE is THE Comforter. He will abide in their hearts, making their joy full. {RH, Jan 27, 1903}

 

As by faith we look to Jesus, our faith pierces the shadow, and we adore God for His wondrous love in giving JESUS THE COMFORTER. {19MR 297.3}

 

Christ is to be known by the blessed name of Comforter. "The Comforter," said Christ to His disciples, "which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you, [John 14:26 quoted] {Ms7-1902, January 26, 1902}

 

The Saviour is our Comforter. This I have proved Him to be. {8MR 49.3}

 

Jesus said, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." John 14:18

 

 

 

Have you also read what EGW warned? Read The Review and Herald, July 26, 1892, she clearly stated;

"Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency. . ." She also said; We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn."

The problem is we pick and choose from EGW writings only the thing we want to accept. Did you know that many of these books that are label to the writings of EGW, she did not write? It about selling her writings in different books for profit. She did not understand everything and yes, she made some errors in here belief and she made it clear that only THE THREE AMIGHTIES are INFALLIBLE!!!

A man by the  name of Leroy Froom, helped put together along with the board of trustee the book called Evangelism (1946). Quickly the White Estate wrote this now:

As Arthur White, at that time director of the White Estate, scanned the files, he found ample material that could be drawn together for a book of counsels on evangelism. On September 10, 1944, the Board of Trustees took the following action:

"Voted: That, in harmony with the recommendation of the Ministerial Association Advisory Council, we authorize the compilation of a manuscript, 'Counsels to Evangelists and Bible Instructors,' the work to be done by a committee of five, appointed by the chair. The committee named as follows: A. L. White, W. H. Branson, R. A. Anderson, Miss Louise Kleuser, J. L. Shuler."--White Estate Board Minutes, Sept. 10, 1944.

Evangelism is not what they claim to compile it was to be 'Counsels to Evangelists and Bible Instructor! What happen?

The EGW estate made this claim:

The last will and testament of Ellen G. White set up a Board of Trustees to manage her estate and produce compilations from her manuscripts. In harmony with this responsibility, the Trustees have issued more than sixty compilations since her death in 1915.

Here is the main portion of EGW Will:

Also, my general manuscript file and all indexes pertaining thereto; also my office furniture and office library. Together with all and singular, the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances hereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining in trust nevertheless for the uses and purposes hereinafter contained.

To Have and to Hold, the said real and personal property until said trustees, and their successors, upon the trust to enter into and upon and take possession of the said real estate and said personal property, to collect and receive the rents, issues and profits thereof, to manage and control said real and personal property, and to rent and lease the same, or any part thereof, to sell parts or portions of said real and personal property, excepting the book copyrights, for the purpose of reinvesting the same in other real or personal property to be held under the same trust, and after paying all taxes, assessments, charges and encumbrances thereon and the expenses of repairing, administering, preserving and protecting the said real property and of handling said personal property, and publishing and selling said books and manuscripts and conducting the business thereof to distribute, pay over and apply the net proceeds from the rents and profits of said real property and from the business of publishing and selling said books and property in the manner following, that is to say. . 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th day of February, 1912

ELLEN G. WHITE

The foregoing instrument consisting of five pages, besides this, was at the date hereof, and by the said Ellen G. White signed, sealed and published as, and declared to be her last will and Testament, in the presence of us, who at her request, and in her presence, and in the presence of each other, have subscribed our names as witnesses thereto.

C .L. TAYLOR; Residing at Sanitarium, California.

PAUL C. MAS0N; Residing at Sanitarium, California.

ENDORSED: Filed July 21st, 1915

N. W. Collins, Clerk.

By Elva Giauque, Deputy Clerk.

You will find nothing in her will giving the authority to create more books with her writings or compiling her writings for new books. If you read the whole will she name the books which was hers and to present her manuscripts that had not been published before her death.

Here is what the pioneers warned:

The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such. Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1861

"Precious truths for the last days were to be searched out and proclaimed--a work which could not be done in `creed-bound' churches any more than the heralding of the gospel to the world could be accomplished by the apostolic church while retaining a connection with the Jewish sects." (J. N. Loughborough, The Second Angel's Message, page 178, emphasis supplied)

James White Agrees With Loughborough "On the subject of creeds, I agree with Bro. Loughborough," James White stated. "Now I take the ground that creeds stand in direct opposition to the gifts." (Review and Herald , October 8, 1861, emphasis supplied)."Let us suppose a case: We get up a creed, stating just what we shall believe on this point and the other, and just what we shall do in reference to this thing and that, and say that we will believe the gifts too. . " James White, "Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, October 5 & 6, 1861," Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich. Third-Day, OCT. 8, 1861)

Here is what Leroy Froom champion for:

"Thus the Truth of the Trinity was set forth in Tract form by the Pacific Press…in February, 1892….It was not written by one of our own men, but by "the late Dr. Samuel Spear."…. This sound and helpful tract by Spear…. was simple, but adequate, as the first step in recognition and declaration. It was the logical aftermath of 1888."

Mr. Froom concludes his brief account by claiming that the book "The Desire of Ages" presented an "inspired depiction" of the trinity doctrine and because of this it has become our denominations' "accepted position."

"...The Desire of Ages, of course, presented an inspired depiction, and was consequently destined to become the denominationally accepted position…. The Desire of Ages…. is one of the most highly esteemed books of the Denomination-a recognized classic, even publicized in such a Catholic journal as the "Universal Fatima News" for September 1965." (Movement of Destiny; pp. 323,324; used by permission)

“I was compelled to search out a score of valuable books written by men outside of our faith--those previously noted--for initial clues and suggestions.” — (LeRoy Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 322)

Now let me be clear, I believe in THE HOLY SPIRIT who is not a ghost! I know through faith that THE FATHER, SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT are a TRIO but not a trinity. The Bible says that THE HOLY SPIRIT does not speaks of HIMSELF. John 16:13

I do not accept the 28 Fundamental Belief because first there were 27, now 28 soon more! The Bible is our creed. We are doing the same thing as the Hebrew did with the Talmud when they came out of the Babylonian exile. We want to set the standard when the Bible already states;

To the Law and the Testimonies if speak not according to this word because there is no light in them. Isa 8:20

We want to make EGW a prophet when she herself said she was not! She said very clear that YAHSHUA told her she would be HIS Messenger. Now surely, HE would have said you will be my prophetess? Then there would not be this misrepresentation at all. THREE BEINGS INDIVIDUALLY working together as a UNION like the Adams.  We twist everything around and know that words have been changed in the Bible by the Protestants. Why? Keeping in with the beliefs they chose. Simply the rest instead of celebration for the Sabbath. Enlarge for Japheth in Gen 9:27 and the Hebrew is "pâthâh," meaning deceitful and every else where is use is stands for that only here it means enlarge! The word season in Gen 1:14 instead of Holy Convocation days and the word in Hebrew is "moed." More of the modern version Bible proves this but not SDA! The pagan word feast which also is "moed" that actually means set or appointed time. We do not want to go there because we do not want observed the other appointed Holy Convocation days. I could go on and on. We have misused EGW so much that young people hate to here about her, and many are writing things on the web against her, taking what she said out of context. She made it clear that she was fallible, but the visions by THE MOST HIGH were not! Why? They were already giving in the Bible. Because of faulty translation and ignore transliteration, YAHWEH had to use her and other as he is still doing today. Here is my two final Scriptures that speak c;e:

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith ELOHI, I will pour out of MY HOLY SPIRIT upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my HOLY SPIRIT; and they shall prophesy: Act 2:16-18

But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 1Co 14:3-5 

 Blessings to everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to make some correction, could not but I hope you get the gist of what I was stating if not please forgive, I edited to much and they kept it with some mistakes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

A man by the  name of Leroy Froom, helped put together along with the board of trustee the book called Evangelism (1946).

Speak about pick and choose!  Exhibit A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in the OT that we really see Christ as God.

Christ is the One Who went forth from the throne of God and appeared to mankind throughout the OT.  And He is referred to as God, all through the OT.

 

Quote

TrevorL wrote: The references to God in the OT are an Angel who represented God Psalm 8:5.

 

That is a new argument for me, so I need to ask:  Are you saying  your understanding is that  God never actually spoke to anyone in the OT,  it was just an angel?   When scripture says they saw "God"   and describes the glorious being they saw (Ex. 24:11) They didn't see God, just an angel?
Is that how you understand this?

 

When scripture in recounting Moses experience, says "Ex. 3:4 "God called unto him  out of the midst of the bush,  3:5 and said do not come any closer, take off your shoes from your feet, for the ground on which you stand is holy ground,
 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

In your understanding it wasn't really God calling out of the bush to Moses, it was just an angel?  

I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding this, as it would mean, it wasn't really God in the midst of the bush as the text states,  even though whoever was talking claimed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  So was Moses confused in thinking that to look was to look upon God?
And what about Moses being asked to remove his shoes because the ground was holy?   Does  an angel's presence make ground holy and he is to be approached  in a worshipful manner?  Yet in Rev. 19:10 an angel rebukes John for that very thing.

Usually when a representative speaks for someone they preface their words with
"This is what the Lord says ......................." or something similar, they don't take the title of "God" for themselves.   They make it clear  they are bearing God's message, they don't just say "I am God".

Psalms 8:5 is talking about the creation of the human race that was created "a little lower than the angels" and was given dominion over the earth (compare with Gen. 1:28).
Later, in the NT the verse is used to show that by taking on human nature, Jesus was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.   But I don't see any connection here as to angels claiming to be God in the OT.   The only angel I know of that claimed to be "god" is Lucifer. 

So, I'll admit I was a little baffled by your explanation, as there are so many texts in the OT where God speaks -- and in several of them it is quite clear that it is Jesus claiming to be God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...